> Of course, because innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of courts litigating the legality of executive actions is not establishing innocence or guilt, s

> Of course, because innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of courts litigating the legality of executive actions is not establishing innocence or guilt, so what you're saying is completely irrelevant. The president doesn't go to prison because some court found that he signed an illegal executive order. (But it sounds like you maybe think that should be the case. It's hard to tell, because you aren't saying anything coherent.) > The POTUS doesn't need to ask for permission to politicized local judges Let's play a simple game. If he signs a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal EO ordering the US Marshals to have you and your family arrested, tortured, and shot tomorrow, whose permission do you think he should need? Which parts of the government would be able to stop him? You seem to think that no 'politicized'[1] judge should be allowed to say "Whoa, hold on there, that may be illegal." --- [1] What the hell does 'politicized' mean? Is there a single person in government who is not 'politicized'? Is SCOTUS somehow not 'politicized'? Is the executive?